More Childless Men: Women Do Not Want Children With Low-status Men

[Exodus2011]

Uberbaldaten you have good points but the problem is how does one direct female behavior without encoraching human rights

You know the feminist argument is men feel entitled to sex . . . Which i think is kinda true tbh. Women dont know what its like to be sexually frustrated, i bet if they did as well they would feel angry and entitled as well

The solution imo is legal prostitution and virtual reality girlfriends, or some other way to create girlfriends

 

[UberBaldaten]

Uberbaldaten you have good points but the problem is how does one direct female behavior without encoraching human rights

You know the feminist argument is men feel entitled to sex . . . Which i think is kinda true tbh. Women dont know what its like to be sexually frustrated, i bet if they did as well they would feel angry and entitled as well

The solution imo is legal prostitution and virtual reality girlfriends, or some other way to create girlfriends

Women also feel entitled to sex and attention.
Fat acceptance is the entitlement that they should get same attention and love like the average counterpart.
See any woman approach Chad and get rejected, and watch her shriek in anger and call him names, even accuse of rape.
I was once chased by a chubby female, she stalked my house, asked about my surname, and I reluctantly went on a date. Told her I am having troubles with ex and she ( thank god she was dumb) threatened on facebook she would tell people I raped her if I don't hook up with her.
I had no intention to bang her as I had flowing golden locks touching my ribs.
This is anecdotal evidence though.

Why shouldn't men feel entitled to sex if they set standards for us to be nice, have a career, groomed etc. Feeling entitled doesn't mean being entitled. In the end we have created throughout this history all the main improvements in order, maybe subconsciously, to be seen by our peers and opposite sex as someone worthy.
Being entitled would imply I have a right to rape her because I did what she asked, this is not the same as expecting something and one ought to feel anger when he or she is being led on.

Men and women have had a societal contract, where men worked and brought money and protected family whereas women took care of children, didn't cuck them with other ( better or worse) men, and took care of household.
The contract is broken as we are still expected to be the breadwinners, have high education, but now also look like roided bodybuilders with perfect hairlines and somehow mysteriously in touch with our feminine side.

On the other hand they bring nothing to the table as they don't even know how to cook a soup, have slept with 100s of men ( statistics show women with more than 1 partner have less chances at succesful marriage) ( broscientists think it's because of oxytocine during orgasm that is desentizing them to pairbonding )

Now even if you manage all that, like Brad Pitt, you can still get cucked and lose half of your wealth and pay alimony. The Government is the Main Alpha and women can always have a safety net through the welfare.

Males are work drones who pay taxes, ( yes women pay taxes but also use more money than males).

The solution depends how far you want to go.
1. Legal prostitution
2. Artificial wombs ( they successfuly did it on animals)
3. Shaming
4. Better laws
5. Cultural shift

 

[UberBaldaten]

I'm wondering when men stopped being able to empathize with women and started wantonly vilifying and antagonizing them like this. There are a ton of guys like this on this board and elsewhere and they all sound the same, like an autistic hive-mind.

Thankfully, the very mechanisms you complain so loudly about will weed you out eventually.

We stopped empathizing when false rape threats and constant degradation with eternal victim status started damaging us. If anyone had empathized with them, it was I, and it has cost me almost my life.
Nice how you always ignore the plight of those who suffered and step in towards your fair maidens.

Our weaponized autism shall prevail.

 

[UberBaldaten]

May your Tinder screenshots and Reddit copy-pastas never be forgotten.

Don't use either.

 

[Exodus2011]

I think it's worth stressing that women are not bio-robots, any more than men are, and capable of much more charitable behavior than people of a certain ilk like to believe.

Yes, if you have little to no money or social status, are short, bald or otherwise physically unattractive and/or have numerous mental illnesses (diagnosed or otherwise), your worth as a mate is very limited which will be reflected in a similarly limited ability to attract women. The market for companionship is a competition and some men simply don't want to acknowledge that. They believe they are entitled to a cute 6+ girl in her early 20s and no assessment of their objective value will convince them otherwise.

You either own up to this or you choose to suffer in solitude.

Lol just be direct and say youre talking about me

I do feel entitled to a 6+ non sl*t but im fair at least with it lol, i think everyones entitled to this, male and female. Im sure if we have create-a-mate virtual reality then lots of high standards girls will use it too

Just think of all these bieber loving girls that would use it

 

[Exodus2011]

Well with the pace of VR its actually not too implausible that we will be able to get at least visually with hot people. Being able to touch them is another thing

Which is why legal prostitution is a good hold over

The real issue is getting the AI i think

No one should have to settle for ugly or mediocre (sub 6).

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I'm wondering when men stopped being able to empathize with women and started wantonly vilifying and antagonizing them like this. There are a ton of guys like this on this board and elsewhere and they all sound the same, like an autistic hive-mind.

Thankfully, the very mechanisms you complain so loudly about will weed you out eventually.

I appreciate your posts on this topic, and you're in the right that the vilification of women seen here and elsewhere is irrational pseudoscience. It's also impressive that you're willing to put in the energy to rigorously debunk this, I myself don't really have it.

However, as I've discussed it with you before, I'd appreciate it if you stopped incorrectly using the term autism. You're using the term as a generalized catch-all for any behaviour that you disapprove of, but it has an actual meaning (albeit an imperfect and evolving one). If you'd like to know more I recommend the book Neurotribes by Steve Silberman, it's on the history of our understanding of autism in the 20th century. It begins with Hans Asperger's clinic in 1930s Vienna, and ends with improvements in modern day understanding. Long story short, autism is likely a different mode of thinking but not a more bigoted or less empathic one.

The only part of these posts that resembles autism is that the endless repetition of "females, chad, genes, sperm are cheap, chad, females, chad, large c***, females, chad, status, chad, etc." can be argued to be a form of echolalia.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I follow that guy from a distance but often his videos don't capture my interest, and I give up after a couple of videos, he'll have some interesting thoughts here and there but man, sometimes he can be tedious to listen to.

I go through an entire video and right after it, I feel like I haven't learned anything useful, or worse, I feel even more confused because I can't make sense of what is point is exactly.

If you had to remember one thing about BPS: he lives in Japan, and that to me is a red flag: the guy has given up. And of course he'll offer the usual rationalizations "but Western women are all nagging c*m dumpsters and Asian women are feminine and caring!"

I spent time with a Japanese guy like that, he did make it seem like a declining society. Young people don't have any drive other than for video games, anime, and p**rn. They don't want to be entrepreneurs, they want to be hired by large corporations and be safe. They also never discuss politics.

He says that the men are worse than the women.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

It's a convenient description of certain reductionist and un-empathetic ways of looking at the world, as displayed by the posters in question. Autists tend to like logical, mechanically coherent systems (which is why they love trains) and simple label-based ways of understanding human interaction, which explains why they are so attracted to the notion of women as biological robots.

However, you shouldn't see the invocation of autism as being directed at you or in any way associating you with these guys.

I don't know why, but the train reference made me laugh.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

View attachment 71263

I prefer spaceships.

Funny story, my brother-in-law wanted to buy train parts for my nephew so he went to a model train store. The guy working there was a huge model train snob (lol WTF), and he didn't want to help my brother in law, I think that the parts that he did have weren't awesome enough. The subject of where my brother-in-law's father got the parts came up. My brother-in-law responded that his dad was really into model trains up until he discovered women, and then he walked out of the store.

 

[UberBaldaten]

Black Pidgeon Speaks is a hypocrite. He is talking about saving white civilization while banging thailand hookers and having asian girlfriend.
He mysteriously thinks that women of other race don't have similar DNA concerned to hypergamy. He as a white american is considered rich and exotic, both which are deemed positive for hypergamous females.

He would have even more luck with Africa where women work for 1$ whole month.

 

[CaptainForehead]

There are also those narratives that men are angels and women are evil or the other way around.

And this leads me to addressing your other post:



I've been saying this for a long time: lookism, sluthatism, however you want to call it is an ideology, a low-resolution set of shallow ideas that makes it easier for their followers to explain the world, and particularly the world of dating.

There is Chad, there is the incel and there is the hypergamous woman.

Chad is God, the incel is human garbage, the hypergamous woman is evil.

Add a couple screenshots from one of their Tinder male model experiments.

Add LDAR and you have the basic structure of all their posts, which now that I've laid it down looks very Marxist: Chad is the rich oppressor, the incel is the poor working class man and the hypergamous women are the unfair patriarchal oppressive structure of our capitalist society which automatically gives all the power and privileges to Chad.

We need an incel revolution.

I haven't seen that dude, but this ideology bears striking resemblance to SJWs (ironically).
These people derive their righteous self-worth in some twisted way from how they perceive they have been persecuted by people who are better off. Chads and Stacies must be responsible for their inceldom, and hence evil, and the universe better recognize this fact and make it right somehow. Anything good that happens to Chad/Stacey not involving incels triggers them.

They can't grasp that
a) the universe is not fair.
b) they fall short in some ways.
c) competition is brutal.

 

[myusernamenow]

I've been saying this for a long time: lookism, sluthatism, however you want to call it is an ideology

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I do sometimes browse female-dominated spaces, and they are in many ways the mirror images of this space. Lots of women are mad at all men, believe that all or nearly all men, #yesallmen, are evil and benefiting from rape culture. It's also often written that life is easier for men, it's easier for men to be good looking, whereas women have all of these requirements to be good looking.

 

[SmoothSailing]

I do sometimes browse female-dominated spaces, and they are in many ways the mirror images of this space. Lots of women are mad at all men, believe that all or nearly all men, #yesallmen, are evil and benefiting from rape culture. It's also often written that life is easier for men, it's easier for men to be good looking, whereas women have all of these requirements to be good looking.

I remember a social anxiety forum I used to regular had a surprising amount of female members (for an internet forum). There used to be some mild (compared to here) hostility between male and female posters. Many males claiming that women had it much easier and surprisingly (to me) many females claiming the exact opposite.

There are also those narratives that men are angels and women are evil or the other way around.

And this leads me to addressing your other post:



I've been saying this for a long time: lookism, sluthatism, however you want to call it is an ideology, a low-resolution set of shallow ideas that makes it easier for their followers to explain the world, and particularly the world of dating.

There is Chad, there is the incel and there is the hypergamous woman.

Chad is God, the incel is human garbage, the hypergamous woman is evil.

Add a couple screenshots from one of their Tinder male model experiments.

Add LDAR and you have the basic structure of all their posts, which now that I've laid it down looks very Marxist: Chad is the rich oppressor, the incel is the poor working class man and the hypergamous women are the unfair patriarchal oppressive structure of our capitalist society which automatically gives all the power and privileges to Chad.

We need an incel revolution.

My biggest criticism of Jordan Peterson is his constant comparison of everything he's critical of to marxism or post modernism. Admittedly I don't know much about these two ideologies, but from what I do understand it seems to me that JP is doing what a lot of people seem to do these days, viewing people as having similar view to the most extremes of their ideology. Or falsely viewing someone as part of a certain ideology because a few of their views coincide with views of that ideology.

So, in spite of agreeing with the general message of your post and the great analogy, I disagree with the comparison to marxism or the criticism of it just because it vaguely represents the structure marxists criticise things.

Really I love JP and obviously know he's far more intelligent than me, I just think he has a bias in this manner. It's always irked me about him. I also hate marxism and post modernism .

 

[JeanLucBB]

Peterson's appeal seems to be "I have a vague hatred of blue-haired college leftists and smarty man says a bunch of vaguely related, intelligent-sounding words that agree with my position". He is mostly arguing against strawmen to a sympathetic audience and doesn't seem to do all that well in actual debates. You are spot on in observing that he cherry-picks extreme examples to represent an entire group, and that he compares everything vaguely leftist or that he doesn't like to post-modernism and/or Marxism.

Apparently he did some good research in his field before he started coming on Rogan and amassing his current following so I'm wont to dismiss him outright.

An alt-rightish guy recently did a 7 (!) hour takedown of Peterson based on a conversation he had with Sam Harris. I haven't watched it to the end obviously but Peterson seems to use a lot of spiritual mumbo-jumbo, for example postulating a dichotomy between "Newtonian" and "Darwinian" when what these words represent in science are not mutually exclusive in any sense of the word.

Still the worst offending pseudo-intellectual on the forum. Throwing out accusations of "He is mostly arguing against strawmen" while simultaneously representing his appeal as "a vague hatred of blue-haired college leftists and smarty man says a bunch of vaguely related, intelligent-sounding words that agree with my position"." You're projecting your own intellectual failings Zircon, as you always have.

Weren't you born into an excessively rich family or something? I've always assumed this is why you're so uninterested in logic in your own discourse while criticising others for the lack of it despite misrepresenting them. It's easy to fling mud when you don't have to bother achieving anything in life intellectually or in your actions because daddy and mummy already achieved it for you.

"- More stuff about marxists being bad. No actual viewpoint cited or argued against."

To act as if this isn't historically self-evident or emphasised by economic history shows a lack of understanding on your behalf, not his. To argue for moral relativism, against freedom of transactions and speech without government interference and against the non-aggression principle places you on the on the backfoot, not him. As per usual you claim he is nothing but word salads and lack of citations and give none of your own citations or direct criticisms of arguments. Pathetic.

"an alt-rightish guy recently did a 7 (!) hour takedown of Peterson based on a conversation he had with Sam Harris. I haven't watched it to the end obviously but Peterson seems to use a lot of spiritual mumbo-jumbo,"

This exemplifies every post you make when attempting to utilise analytical philosophy and logic "Hey you're wrong and you give no evidence! Some guy on the internet who I was half paying attention to but didn't watch the whole thing said so and you SEEM to just say a lot of spiritual mumbo-jumbo!". It's only ok when you do it apparently.

 

[JeanLucBB]

I'm just summing up my impressions from listening to several hours of his talks on Rogan and his own channel. Since I already make clear that these are subjective assessments your vehement response seems quite strange to say the least. I'll risk enraging you further by saying that your reaction to me implies I really have touched on something that is true.

Instead of attacking me in such an inflammatory manner, why don't you give an explanation of why you like him and what appeal he has to you? I'll engage you sincerely, for what it's worth.

I'm not even a huge fan and actually agree with a lot of what you said, but was just aggravated that the same criticisms you were applying to him could be applied to your posts to criticise him in the last few cases.

 

[UberBaldaten]

I don't see Peterson as archetypal father. More like a brother. Archetypal father would instigate punishment. Like a teacher who will fail you on a test thousand times until you get it right.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

A weird thing about Jordan Patterson is that he's most famous for his stance against gender-neutral pronouns.

But he's objectively in the wrong there. The science is clear that some people have ambiguous gender, for example if they're born with hermaphroditic genitalia. It's his cause celebre, and he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[JeanLucBB]

He's not against gender-neutral pronouns.

He's against forcing people to use them, which now the law in Canada, and yes, you could go to jail for using the wrong pronoun.

And if you think it's just using them, or he for she, think again, he's the list of the pronouns that you're now forced to use in Canada:

http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

You'd better start studying them .

I'm not making any of this up.

And Jordan Peterson recognizes that there is a very small minority of people who have ambiguous gender, he has never said otherwise.

You seem to have a very superficial understanding of this issue. I don't think you've really watched any of his lectures otherwise you would never write what you've written about.

But as I've said, the normal reaction to have to Jordan Peterson's ideas from a distance is: "he's a smug pseudo-intellectual who thinks he can tell people how to live their lives, I'd better think for myself!" Something like that.

This is what annoys me somewhat about the regular critiques I see of Peterson. Very regularly they whittle their interpretation of his arguments down to the base level of a "anti-SJW" or "the guy who won't use preferred pronouns" and yet more and more I see them criticise Peterson as the one who is being superficial. Milo Yianaopoulos isn't at the same level, but often people criticise him as only talking about free speech and the right to troll, but when you have Western governments like in Canada, Australia and elsewhere use legal means to punish people for not abiding by their version of reality you inarguably have a serious and disturbing problem that only seems to be getting worse.

Rallying against the attempt of governments and leftists to become the LEGAL arbiters of truth is hardly a superficial or unimportant issue.